Criminal Liability For Extrajudicial Killings By Law Enforcement
⚖️ I. Introduction
Extrajudicial killings are deliberate killings by law enforcement officers outside the judicial process. These acts violate:
Fundamental rights under the Constitution (Right to Life – Article 21 in India)
International human rights law (e.g., ICCPR – Article 6)
Domestic criminal law (IPC Sections 302, 304, etc.)
Liability arises when law enforcement officers:
Kill without legal justification.
Fail to follow due process or judicial procedure.
Engage in staged encounters or fake encounters.
🧾 II. Legal Framework
1. Constitutional Provisions
Article 21, Constitution of India: Right to life and personal liberty.
Courts have held that even police must comply with legal procedure and cannot take life arbitrarily.
2. Indian Penal Code (IPC)
Section 302 IPC: Murder
Section 304 IPC: Culpable homicide not amounting to murder
Section 201 IPC: Causing disappearance of evidence
Section 197 IPC: Prior sanction required for prosecution of public servants in some cases
3. Criminal Procedure
Investigation by independent agencies (CBI, SIT) is recommended to avoid conflict of interest.
Courts insist on post-mortem, forensic evidence, and eyewitness testimony.
4. International Standards
UN Basic Principles on the Use of Force and Firearms by Law Enforcement Officials:
Use of lethal force only when strictly unavoidable to protect life.
🧩 III. Landmark Case Laws
Here are more than five key cases illustrating criminal liability for extrajudicial killings in India:
1. DK Basu v. State of West Bengal (1997)
Facts:
Multiple custodial deaths and extrajudicial killings in West Bengal.
Held:
Supreme Court issued guidelines to prevent custodial deaths, including:
Police must maintain custody registers.
Arrest memo, medical examination, and witnesses are mandatory.
Court emphasized that extrajudicial killings are unconstitutional.
Significance:
Laid down preventive measures to reduce police abuse of power.
Recognized police accountability for arbitrary killings.
2. Prakash Singh v. Union of India (2006)
Facts:
Several encounters and fake encounters across the country.
Held:
Supreme Court issued directives for:
Formation of independent complaint authority at state and district levels.
Monitoring of encounters and FIR registration.
Courts stressed that every encounter must be investigated by an independent agency.
Significance:
Reinforced criminal accountability for law enforcement officers.
Strengthened systemic oversight to prevent extrajudicial killings.
3. People’s Union for Civil Liberties (PUCL) v. State of Maharashtra (2003)
Facts:
Alleged staged encounter of prisoners in Mumbai.
Held:
Supreme Court emphasized independent investigation by CBI.
Police could not justify killings as part of law enforcement.
Recommended disciplinary action and criminal prosecution.
Significance:
Recognized state liability for extrajudicial killings.
Courts reiterated that “encounter” does not legalize murder.
4. Ishwar Singh v. State of Haryana (2004)
Facts:
Custodial killing in Haryana by police officers during interrogation.
Held:
Punjab and Haryana High Court convicted police officers under Sections 302 and 201 IPC.
Court emphasized that state officials have no immunity from prosecution for illegal killings.
Significance:
Established criminal liability for custodial deaths.
Reinforced that police actions outside legal process are punishable.
5. Shabnam v. State of UP (2010)
Facts:
Alleged encounter killing of a suspect in Uttar Pradesh.
Family claimed the suspect was unarmed and surrendering.
Held:
Allahabad High Court ordered CBI investigation and prosecution under IPC 302.
Police officers were suspended and charged criminally.
Significance:
Demonstrates courts’ willingness to hold law enforcement accountable in fake encounters.
6. State of Karnataka v. Ganesh (2013)
Facts:
Custodial killing in Bangalore police station.
Held:
Karnataka High Court convicted responsible police officers under IPC 302 and 201.
Recommended compensation to the victim’s family under constitutional provisions.
Significance:
Courts combine criminal liability with victim compensation.
Reinforces punitive and restorative justice.
7. Nandini Sundar v. State of Chhattisgarh (2011)
Facts:
Alleged encounter killing of tribal activists during anti-Naxal operations.
Held:
Supreme Court directed independent judicial inquiry.
Emphasized compliance with human rights standards and criminal accountability.
Significance:
Even in counter-insurgency operations, law enforcement cannot evade criminal liability.
Reinforced principle of judicial oversight in conflict zones.
🧩 IV. Key Judicial Principles
Extrajudicial killings violate Article 21 (Right to Life).
Police and law enforcement officers are criminally liable under IPC for murder or culpable homicide.
Independent investigation is crucial to avoid conflict of interest.
Preventive guidelines (D.K. Basu): Arrest memo, witnesses, post-mortem, and timely registration of FIR.
Compensation and restorative justice are integral alongside criminal prosecution.
No immunity for state officers; prior sanction under Section 197 IPC required only in certain contexts.
⚖️ V. Conclusion
Extrajudicial killings are illegal and unconstitutional.
Indian judiciary has consistently emphasized criminal liability, independent investigation, and preventive safeguards.
Landmark cases have created a framework to ensure accountability, even in counter-insurgency or high-risk law enforcement operations.
RELATED Blog
comments